Best vintage SLR?

I'm looking for a good, vintage SLR on ebay. Anyone know of any that are moderately cheap?

Those are kinda wide open requirements! There are dozens of models. But you can't go wrong with a Nikon F and 50/1.4....although not the cheapest. For cheap, look for Minolta SRT 101, Nikkormat, Canon FT.

Okay, maybe I'm just looking more for a good vintage manual camera, 35mm, maybe from

60s/70s. I'd like my photos to have that washed out look. Does that help? lol

Well that narrows it down a bit. You'll not be looking for a good camera, then.

I'm not sure what that "washed out look" is,but if you want a cheap all manual SLR try a Zenit if you want a cheap non SLR try an Argus C3.But be forewarned both a these cameras are very capable of taking Pro-quality pictures.Just because the camera cost less than lunch at McDonalds doesn't mean it's rubbish.If you just want rotten pictures....Er,I mean pictures with character,buy a Holga.

The quality of most cameras you'll find will be far too high for your requirements. The only SLR which could possibly be of any use to you is one with an improvised lens stuck on front. Even something like a Kodak Duaflex or Pony 135 is too good for you. You can get something of a washed-out muted look (in color) by using an old pre-WWII camera with an uncoated lens, but even there it still may be too sharp. There are lots of plastic cameras with meniscus lenses that can give you what you want - the Holga itself can be expensive due to cult status, but there are others - you can often find cheap junk cameras in thrift stores for very little.

You don't get 'that washed out look' from old cameras of the 60's and 70's. That effect is mostly fading of prints due to age. I think you might be disappointed to see how well the 1960's cameras could perform.

 

I agree with the prewar uncoated lens for 'the washed out look' but even then you might be surprised....

 

As a general recommendation I would go for Nikon F gear. The Nikkormat FTN is a lower priced camera from this range.

Hi, Tom Interesting post, mate. So you want a cheap but reliable SLR, that gives er "interesting" pictures of the washed-out variety. Like the other guys have said, that's a tall order because just about everything of the SLR kind gives sharp pics. Some may be a bit unreliable and/or eat batteries at a prodigious rate, but when they're working they'll surprise with the quality of the results.

 

On reflection, perhaps what you need is either an Exakta or Exa fitted with a Meyer Domiplan lens. The Exaktas are starting to get pricey if they're in nice condition, but their little ugly brother the EXA never seems to fetch very much. Soo my advice would be for an EXA fitted with a Domiplan. Shoot at max aperture or close to it and you should get your required low-contrast results. Come to think of it, the Ludwig Meritar lens that also came stock with some EXAs is a classic in mediocrity so bear that one in mind, too. (Pete In Perth)

Pete, I have a couple of Exa's from my old Dad including one with the waist level finder rather than the swish new pentaprism jigger. Meritar fitted they still turn in sharpish shots with reasonable contrast (disappointed groan). Though as you say they are worth very little.

 

Maybe if you could get some 1960's Agfa 35mm film stock.....

Perhaps you should buy a Holga:

 

http://apogeephoto.com/july2001/plastic_fantastic.shtml

 

You can even buy one that's been modified to accept 35mm film:

 

http://www.holgamods.com/

Tom, cameras of the '60s and '70s, good and not so good alike, all took pretty good pictures. If you want the "washed out look", none of them will give it to you. Come to think of it, no camera in good working order and used correctly will produce it.

 

What you want to do, if shooting color, is overexpose if shooting slides and underexpose severely if shooting negatives. If shooting black and white, underexpose and underdevelop. Then don't try to fix the mistake when printing. BTW, if you send color negatives out to be printed the lab will do its best to make acceptable prints, i.e., not "washed out", unless instructed to do otherwise. Alternatively, bleach the prints.

 

Mark Medin, I have couple of pre-WWI lenses in good order. All uncoated, of course. I shoot slides with them. In blind tests highly experienced photographers have been unable to tell me which of a group of slides, some shot with my oldies, other with modern lenses, were shot with the oldies. The canard that old lenses are inherently low contrast won't die, but it is still false. People consistently blame the effects of overexposure on the lens. I don't know why they do it, but they're mistaken. Old shutters often run slow ...

A camera from the 60`s is not the answer. I can use mine and make competitive prints with todays stuff.

 

You need to age poor quality color for 40 years. Then you get what you want.

 

If you can`t wait, scan the negs or get a cheap digial, bring it into photoshop and desaturate the color and lower the contrast.

 

Get cheap consumer scans and Photoshop Elements can be had for $100.

There are also free limited value programs like Picasa. There is an aging function in there.

Regarding the suggestion of an Exa with a Meyer Domiplan - you can't even rely on that as some were OK (for a triplet I mean) I think they put a few good ones out just to keep us guessing!

 

If you want to make certin of this look, then go down the toy camera route.

 

Nick

Hi, Colin OK, mate, you've got me here. I guess it's time to confess that I do actually have an EXA. It's an EXA 11 with fixed pentaprism and it looks great. Well, that's to say, it looks as great as any EXA ever did, which isn't saying all that much unless one likes ugly, smallish toad-like but curiously heavy beasts with very limited pic-taking capabilities.

 

Despite my EXA 11's almost mint condition, the built-in (and therefore uncleanable without considerable effort) pentaprism has somehow acquired so much internal dust and crap that viewing is a nightmare. However, I also suspect that even if it were still pristine, focussing would still be a hit-or-miss affair thanks to the very vague ground-glass imaging via the (yes!) Meritar f2.9 lens. Film/shutter wind is an RSI-inviting exercise, because it's so damn stiff despite umpteen efforts at getting some lubricant into the system. This ia one seriously dislikable camera.

 

However, please don't think I'm an Ihagee-hater. Au contraire, I'm a great admirer of Exaktas and had about a dozen of 'em at the last count, from pre-war Kine to last-gasp VX 1000. It's just those exasperating EXAs I can't find any love for .......... (Pete In Perth)

And, of course, one can carry an Exa with a Biotar, or an Exakta Varex with a Meritar...so "deurmekaar" [mixed up].

 

Washed out? I'm trying overexposure of long-expired Kodak colour negative film but with a so-called "warming filter". Initial efforts from a Rolleiflex Automat MX yield unremarkable photos...I think the warming filter may simply cancel out the blue cast. Not sure. I'll keep trying, maybe with a pre-war uncoated lens on an Exakta SLR. It's a lot more fun than photoshop, at least for me.

Pete, the Exa range is not my favurite either. They just don't set the pulse racing or even gently jogging. Uninspiring. I wish my Dad had bought Exactas instead.

 

My best suggestions for the washed out look are :

 

1) find a good camera with a fungus ridden lens. I had a Leica III with Elmar lens that took rubbish pictures for that reason.

 

2) A folding camera where the front standard is slightly out of whack. These can give interesting dreamy pictures where nothing is in sharp focus.

Best advice you have received is to incorporate digital to achieve the washed out faded look you desire. Either go all digital or convert your color negatives to digital. GIMP is a free open source image editor that some say is the equivalent of Photoshop.

 

Why create the effect digitally ? YOU will have control over how the final image appears.

 

As for a camera, you can find a 5-8mp digital P&S for ~$100 if you take your time. You can also find many many classic film SLRs from the 60-70-80's for the same price. Minolta, Pentax, Nikon, Canon etc etc.

 

Good Luck.

Tom - look at some Holga galleries. That may, or may not, be a look that you'll like. They

are medium format cameras (and only $20), but, as noted above, you can buy one

converted to 35mm.

 

A few Holga galleries:

 

http://nersp.nerdc.ufl.edu/~arthurl/Blues/holga/holga.html

 

http://www.sightphoto.com/sightphoto/story/cuba/cuba01.html

 

http://www.bildmaterial.ch/toycam

 

http://www.kmaphoto.com/fineart.htm

 

http://saralovering.com/gallery/holga/index.php

 

http://www.holgarepublic.com/holgalry.htm

Tom, all good suggestions here. Don't forget the Pentax Spotmatic, which is inexpensive and you have loads of lenses to choose from. But if I were going to do it, I'd get something different from the Chevy, Ford, or Plymouth. A Bessler Topcon Super D, or a Ziess SLR from the 60s, Even though it isn't in this forum's purview; a Leica R.

I think what your looking for fotos taken by older TLR's 1950 and under they can give you the soft feeling in your fotos attached is a foto I think your looking for ?

Don't want to rain on the parade, but that image isn't 'soft' as much as out of focus.

 

Nonetheless an uncoated lens from the 1930s or 40s gives a good effect for some subjects-- low contrast, shadows full of light. I have an uncoated Canon 50/3.5 from the late 1940s with a tessar-type design. It gives very different results from a modern lens, as you'd expect.

aaagh don't fight it. thrift stores are full of $1.99 plastic 35mm cameras.

maybe not as bad as you hoped for but you could always shoot B&W and send it out to some cheap place, I am sure you will than get the " look" you want.

don't bother with 126,127,or 110 as film is rare.

didn't freestyle once sell a Holga 35mm camera?

 

I saw some photos last week they were sharp and clear, I asked and the owner used a disposable 38mm. The Kodak Max disposable cameras are reputed to be very good, so avoid them.

I would say the Minolta SRT 101 is the cheap one but if you are happy to spend a moderate amount the Leica SL2 is reliable and user friendly with a brilliant finder.In short no contest.

Cheers Manfred

Manfred, washed out photos with a SL2? Shame, shame! If you are rich and want the classic "look", a Leica 111G with an 85mm Summarex wide open will do the the trick.

 

If this is not satisfactory, pack it all up and send to me, SL2 included.

 

Tony

<<...from 60s/70s. I'd like my photos to have that washed out look...>>

 

In my memory of 60's & 70"s "washed out" photos, it was the processing rather than the camera which produced the look: color prints processed by Kodak were quite "mild"; black and white sent out through the drugstore lacked contrast. The only washed out b&w I've had in recent times (I went back to developing my own in the 70's to get away from that) came from commercial processing of C-41 black and white films: maybe you could try that with whatever camera you have handy?